FROM THE DONAHUE SHOW LAST NIGHT (10/3/02):
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRD: I’m not going to continue to be silent. The blood of our sons and daughters, our soldiers, sailors and airmen, have far more value than a few votes in a ballot box. For the first time in the history of the republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. And I will not be silent. I have no grief for Iraq but I am not going to be silenced. For the president to suggest that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people is outrageous, is insulting. It is wrong, wrong, wrong!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHUE: You’ve been reelected by the people of West Virginia eight times.
BYRD: That’s right.
DONAHUE: You’re coming up on 48 years, sir. And you are standing now, not alone but not a whole lot of help here. You see this effort to get Congress to approve the president’s resolution regarding Iraq as presidential hubris. Please make your point, sir.
BYRD: The Constitution gives to the elected representatives of the people in Congress the power to declare war. Here we are, in a situation where this administration is seeking to have Congress walk away from its constitutional duties and concede the powers of peace or war to the president of the United States. This can be a Republican president or a Democratic president. This is what we’re about today, to do in this position. We’re about to abdicate our responsibilities under the Constitution to declare war or peace, and hand it over, lock, stock and barrel, to be determined by one man, the president of the United States.
DONAHUE: This is one of the more recent statements of President Bush.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, "PRESIDENT" OF THE UNITED STATES: Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable. We will not leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. We didn’t ask for this challenge as a country, but we will face it. And we will face it together.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHUE: We need to go in. He has weapons of mass destruction. The sooner the better. Every day we wait, we are more at risk. We must disarm Saddam. Senator Byrd?
BYRD: This administration has been unable to show the evidence, which is today and current, which is different from what this administration knew three months ago, six months ago, a year ago. And yet the administration, based on no new evidence that there is an immediate, impending threat to the United States or its military forces-the administration is pushing us, the Congress, into a decision, in an atmosphere that is super-charged with politics. Asking for a vote before the election, that is wrong.
DONAHUE: You see the fact that this election is just a couple of days more than a month away as rushing to make a decision that may involve thousands and thousands of young men and women in uniform as particularly wrong?
BYRD: Yes, because when the elected representatives of the people in Congress vote on war or peace, they should be able to focus their full attentions on that matter, and vote on the merits of that matter. Not be distracted by an election that is imminent, which may impair their chances for reelection. That situation in which members are forced to vote just before an election taints the decision by the Congress. Because it is not a decision that is based with clear and focused reflection on this matter of war and peace, which is so great, so weighty, with respect to the American people and their future. There need to be questions asked. We need to ask questions. The American people need to have their questions answered. Because it is a golden treasure, the American people, is going to be spilled if Congress makes the wrong decision. And if we make this decision on this resolution as it is now written, we will have abdicated our responsibilities as members of Congress under the Constitution, to make this one decision, which is the most weighty of all, war or peace. And we will have done it in an atmosphere that is charged with politics, super-charged with politics. That is not in the best interests of the American people.
DONAHUE: It will also be done preemptively.
BYRD: That’s the new Bush doctrine. Nobody questions the Constitution with respect to the inherent powers that it gives to the commander-in-chief, the president of the United States, to repel an immediate, unforeseen attack on the United States or its military forces. Nobody questioned his inherent power to do that. The framers intended for him to have that inherent power.
DONAHUE: He has that flexibility.
BYRD: He has that flexibility because...
DONAHUE: I want you to tell us what he doesn’t have. My apology for interrupting, because we do have a break here.
BYRD: All right.
DONAHUE: What doesn’t the president have? Senator Byrd speaks to that issue.
BYRD: The president...
DONAHUE: ... when we come back. When we come back, in just a moment.
BYRD: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRD: I’ve been in this Congress 50 years. I’ve never seen a president of the United States, or the vice president of the United States, stoop to such low levels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: One of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well is his biological weapons capability, the fact that he may at some point try to use smallpox, anthrax, plague, some other kind of biological agent against other nations, possibly including even the United States. So this is not just a one-dimensional threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHUE: We are under the Capitol dome in Washington, D.C. with Senator Robert Byrd. You are confident that the Constitution allows the president to respond immediately, without the cumbersome technicalities of going to Congress. But this is not such a situation. Please make your point, sir.
BYRD: Well, we have an administration that seeks power. And the Constitution-this administration wants to believe that the Constitution gives the president the inherent power to strike preemptively, to make preemptive strikes against another nation, on the basis of suspicion or on the basis of whatever the president determines. The Constitution doesn’t give that power. This Constitution only gives the president the inherent power to repel an unforeseen and sudden attack against the United States or its military forces. This administration wants this Constitution to be read in such a way that the president will have the power without the declaration by the Congress; the power by one man, who determines to deliver a preemptive strike. That is the Bush doctrine. This Constitution does not give this administration that power, or any other administration.
DONAHUE: Thirty-three days before the election.
BYRD: Yes.
DONAHUE: I will try and share what I believe is going on inside the majority of the Congress who will vote for this, who will vote to support the president’s position. They don’t want to be on the wrong side of the war, Senator. They don’t want to be out there alone. If the preemptive strike works and the G.I.s are giving out candy to Iraqi children, they are finished in public service. And they’d rather be shamed if it doesn’t work, because at least it will be a bipartisan shame. They’ll be with the other party in this shame and it won’t be so costly. How do you feel about that analysis?
BYRD: I don’t want the Congress to be on the wrong side of this Constitution. This Constitution was made by the framers. And it is supposed to endure throughout the ages. We must not put aside this Constitution. Let me tell you what this resolution would do, that’s coming up here from the administration. Get this. The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate, in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. And enforce all involved, all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This is an open-ended grant to the president of the United States-whatever he may be, Democrat or Republican-not just now, but for the unforeseen future, to make any attacks. To use the military force of the United States anywhere he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants, if he perceives it, if he determines it to be necessary and appropriate. What does that mean? To be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. I’m not going to vote for that kind of resolution. That’s an open-ended resolution for the president of the United States to take our military, do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants, in order to deliver a preemptive attack on any force that he determines might be connected with Iraq.
DONAHUE: We are in Washington, D.C. with Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Back in a moment.
DONAHUE: More with Senator Robert Byrd on the move toward war with
DONAHUE: Well, Senator, you’re passionate in your opposition to this war resolution against Iraq. You hold up that Constitution: only Congress has the power to declare war. You believe this gives President Bush far too much power, way beyond the scope of the Constitution. Why are you leaning against the wind on this? You’re-This resolution will pass. How do you explain your colleagues’ support of this? And why are you alone?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD, (D) WEST VIRGINIA: Because the American people have not been adequately informed, as to the answers to the questions that they ought to know about before we get into this thing. They’ve been handed rhetoric by an administration that has a lust for power, power over the Congress. And in the great matters of war and peace, the American people-I won’t be leaning against the wind if the American people start getting the answers that they need. What’s this going to do to the Middle East? What are the ramifications around the world? How it will affect our economy? How many American boys and girls - I’d say, men and women are going to lose their lives in this attack? Are they going to be put into an arena where there are biological weapons? What’s going to happen to Israel? What’s going to happen to the war on terrorism here at home while we’re focused on a war thousands of miles away? The American people need answers to these questions. How soon would this be likely to get out? What’s going to be the economiccost in this war? And we should have answers to these questions.What are the administration’s plans? We haven’t seen any. And what are the things that the administration knows today that it didn’t know two months ago, three months ago, or a year ago, which makes it so compelling that Congress vote on this question of war or peace before we go home? The American people need these answers. And once the American people are informed as to what is involved here, I won’t be sailing against the wind. I had almost a thousand calls yesterday. And only one was against my position. The American people want information, because it’s their boys, their girls, their treasury that are going to be expended if we go to war.
DONAHUE: Your Senate leader, Tom Daschle, will vote for this war. Minority leader Gephardt in the House will vote for this resolution. What would you say to them if you met them in the hallway?
BYRD: Say hello. Steady the record. Take time. Let’s wait. Let’s don’t be rushed.
DONAHUE: They feel the party is in jeopardy. The Democratic party is in jeopardy if they come out of this election looking like anti-war wimps. That’s what they’re afraid of.
BYRD: What I’m afraid of is that we’re going to be rushed into making a decision which would be tainted by the super-charged atmosphere of politics. That is wrong. We’re going to have to answer for this vote in the years to come. And I want to be able to look into that mirror when I leave this Senate and believe that I voted first, last, and always, for the Constitution, the institution of the Senate, and the American people, what’s in their best interests.
DONAHUE: I want you to see a film clip here. A friend of yours. Your candidate in the last presidential election. Roll the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRD: I’m here today to tell you that I am for Al Gore 100 percent. Lock, stock and barrel. Lock, stock and barrel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHUE: He has come out to challenge the president. Are you pleased with him today?
BYRD: If he had won that election in West Virginia, he would be sitting in the White House today. He lost West Virginia. He shouldn’t have lost West Virginia. That’s not the question today. The question today that is bearing down upon us like a Mac truck in the United States Senate is the question of peace or war. Now, I lived on the other side of the tracks when I grew up. I didn’t come up in the corporate boardrooms of today. If I had, perhaps then I would have been one of those 30 leading CEO’s in this country who earned $3.123 billion in one year. I didn’t live on the other side of the tracks. I lived on the side of the tracks where the mothers lived who were going to give their sons and daughters in war. And I believe that we ought to stand by the Constitution. Not be swayed by politics but be swayed by our oaths to support and defend the Constitution. And our intuition is to do what is right by the American people. Who are going to be sorely taxed in a war which they do not comprehend and which has not been fully explained to them.
DONAHUE: And going to be costly, which you say this administration has not stepped up honestly about. Kindly speak to that, sir.
BYRD: Well, Mr. Lawrence Lindsay said a few days ago, in answer to a question, as reported in the newspapers, that this war would probably cost somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion. Somewhere between $100 and $200 billion. But he said, that’s nothing. That’s nothing. Now, I can’t comprehend this type of mentality. The president of the United States has dug in his heels against $9 billion being spent in the appropriation bills for Homeland Security. And for veterans. And for the good of the people, the safety of the people of this country. He has stuck his feet in concrete and will not move. He was offered a chance to put his signature on an appropriation bill that would have provided $2.5 billion for Homeland Security. He turned his back on it. He says to the people out there, when he has all these back-drops of Marines-and I’d like to have those back-drops, too-but he says, Congress ought to pass my bill on the Homeland Security. He had the opportunity to sign his name to a bill that would have provided $2.5 billion immediately for Homeland Security, and he turned his back on it. So I say, let’s pay attention to what he’s saying. But most of all, let’s listen to the Constitution and what’s in our hearts. Let’s have the American people understand what they’re about to get into. If we follow lock, stock, and barrel, the siren calls of this administration and the siren calls of politics and the super-charged elections...
DONAHUE: Yes. You’ve gone on record here to say you will vote against this war, against Iraq, this war resolution. Who’s going with you? Can you give me some other Democratic names in the Senate? You’ve been reelected eight times. You can count heads. Tell me.
BYRD: Well, I’m not saying I would vote against any resolution.
DONAHUE: But this one.
BYRD: And there are some alternatives being worked on. And I want to base my business, my decision on the Constitution. And on what’s right for the American people and on getting the information to answer the questions that I have and that the American people would have. So I would not just vote against any old resolution. But I would certainly vote against this rag.
DONAHUE: And who would join you?
BYRD: There are nine pages in this. And they could all be thrown away. What this resolution proposes could be written in one sentence.
DONAHUE: Let’s hear the sentence. One sentence.
BYRD: Well, we could authorize the president to use the military forces of this country in any way he determines; in any way he determines to use the armed forces, in any way that he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. That’s an open ended authorization. Why not do it one sentence and not with nine? This is a blank check. This resolution that we’re about to pass, on which the administration had and which some of the leaders of my own party were down there in the Rose Garden applauding yesterday, that resolution is nothing but a blank check to the president of the United States, and it is covered over by the fig leaves of beautifully flowered “whereas”-es. It’s a blank check. I’m not going to give it to him.
DONAHUE: You’re not prepared to tell us who else might refuse to give it to him?
BYRD: I don’t know. I’m the keeper of my own conscience.
DONAHUE: But you acknowledge that you’re going down to defeat with this one.
BYRD: I don’t acknowledge that at all. I think if we could take some time, I’m sure there would be some other Senators who will voice the same concerns that I do. And I hope that the American people will respond. I hope they’ll let the leadership of both House and Senate and at the other end of the Constitution. Let the American people be heard on this. Because they’re the ones who are going to pay.
DONAHUE: Yes. But the vote will come before the election. May we have here a crystal ball here? What do you think’s going to happen this November? At the polls? I regret I have only 30 seconds.
BYRD: I don’t know what will happen. That’s the problem. This administration took everything else off the deck. Everything else off the stage but this one question of war or peace and did it right just before the election. And you can’t tell me that that isn’t campaign oriented.
DONAHUE: Yes. I thank you, Senator Byrd, for speaking with us here at the nation’s capitol.
Friday, October 04, 2002
Smirking Chimp has an LA Times article on the close Senate race in Minnesota between Senator Paul Wellstone and St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman. Wellstone is in a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situation on Iraq. Apparently, he may lose votes if he votes against the Iraq resolution, and if he votes for it, he may lose votes to the Green candidate. Now, I support the Green movement, but I can't believe they are actually running against the most liberal member of Congress and risking control of the Senate. Just goes to show how messed up the Green Party apparatus is.
Today's Salon.com has an interview with Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA) who travelled to Iraq last week with Rep. Bonior and Rep. McDermott. There isn't too much of interest in the interview (he seems a little upset by McDermott's comments), until the final question.
"Will you support the resolution that the White House and Richard Gephardt are supporting?
I suspect that the resolution's going to pass. But I don't think I can vote for the resolution that's before us. I think the more conservative vote is a "No" vote. I just think it's a real radical departure -- from international law, our constitutional democracy. I think to do a preemptive strike without multilateral support is a big, big mistake. No. 1, I think any kind of strike needs to be the last possible option. And No. 2, we really need to do it with multilateral support, and I don't think that's there. I just don't see any immediate danger to the citizens of this country and the people I represent. I've been to all the briefings, I've heard from everybody. I just don't know a lot of guys who are thinking this is the best way to go."
Do you think that if more of these hawkish Congressmen actually went to Iraq and saw how we've already destroyed this country there would be any chance of this resolution passing?
"Will you support the resolution that the White House and Richard Gephardt are supporting?
I suspect that the resolution's going to pass. But I don't think I can vote for the resolution that's before us. I think the more conservative vote is a "No" vote. I just think it's a real radical departure -- from international law, our constitutional democracy. I think to do a preemptive strike without multilateral support is a big, big mistake. No. 1, I think any kind of strike needs to be the last possible option. And No. 2, we really need to do it with multilateral support, and I don't think that's there. I just don't see any immediate danger to the citizens of this country and the people I represent. I've been to all the briefings, I've heard from everybody. I just don't know a lot of guys who are thinking this is the best way to go."
Do you think that if more of these hawkish Congressmen actually went to Iraq and saw how we've already destroyed this country there would be any chance of this resolution passing?
Thursday, October 03, 2002
"Sea Change," the new album by Beck, is painfully beautiful. Twelve songs that mostly deal with lost love (supposedly, Beck and his longtime girlfriend parted ways recently), it reveals that Beck is a very sad sad man. While it would be hard for him to outdo his 1996 masterpiece "Odelay" (one of the most important albums of the last 20 years), "Sea Change" does come close. Unlike "Odelay" and "Midnite Vultures," it lacks the shake-your-booty energy usually synonymous with his music. Musically, it resembles "Mutations" but even that album had some moments of levity. "Sea Change" is all sad reflection; even Beck's voice sounds morose and weighed down.
It took me a few listens to get used to "Sea Change", as most of the songs don't necessarily carry an obvious hook -- and like most of his other music, it's heavy on sound effects and dissonance. But now I find myself walking around singing some of the songs and hearing the ring of the glockenspiel in my head.
Once I get my head around this album, it's on to Peter Gabriel's new one. I've seen a lot of mixed reviews of it. But what do critics know? I still can't believe they like that piece of shit that Wilco just put out.
Beck will appear solo on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on October 9th.
Beck will also appear on Late Night with Conan O'Brien October 29th, he'll be backed by the Flaming Lips.
It took me a few listens to get used to "Sea Change", as most of the songs don't necessarily carry an obvious hook -- and like most of his other music, it's heavy on sound effects and dissonance. But now I find myself walking around singing some of the songs and hearing the ring of the glockenspiel in my head.
Once I get my head around this album, it's on to Peter Gabriel's new one. I've seen a lot of mixed reviews of it. But what do critics know? I still can't believe they like that piece of shit that Wilco just put out.
Beck will appear solo on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on October 9th.
Beck will also appear on Late Night with Conan O'Brien October 29th, he'll be backed by the Flaming Lips.
Josh Marshall has a good write-up on the Jersey Senate race.
"The money quote from the New Jersey Supreme Court ballot case came from Justice Peter G. Verniero, a former Chief Counsel, Chief of Staff and later Supreme Court appointee of former Governor Christie Whitman. 'Didn't Mr. Forrester call for Mr. Torricelli to withdraw?' he said in response to a protesting Republican attorney during oral arguments. 'Was he expecting to run unopposed?' That about sums it up.
Click here to read more.
"The money quote from the New Jersey Supreme Court ballot case came from Justice Peter G. Verniero, a former Chief Counsel, Chief of Staff and later Supreme Court appointee of former Governor Christie Whitman. 'Didn't Mr. Forrester call for Mr. Torricelli to withdraw?' he said in response to a protesting Republican attorney during oral arguments. 'Was he expecting to run unopposed?' That about sums it up.
Click here to read more.
Last night on Donahue, Congressman McDermott (D-Wa) debated Col. Ken Allard, U.S. Army (Ret.), MSNBC Military Analyst and resident fascist about McDermott's comments while in Iraq this past weekend. Click here and scroll down about 75% (to keep viewers, they saved the best for last).
Here are some highlights:
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Is the question whether I should criticize the president, or should I be in enemy territory when I do it? Is that-I’m not quite sure...
DONAHUE: I guess it’s about geography, sir. I’m trying to figure it out myself. I think if you had-I think if you had made this point in Washington, or on the floor, you would not be pilloried as you are today.
MCDERMOTT: I made that point two weeks before. That was old news. I didn’t say anything except to respond to a question over there to an American television station. And the right wing doesn’t want to hear any dissent. That’s what this furor is all about. They don’t want anybody to talk about the fact that the president is confusing the American people about the difference between “regime change,” going to war, and disarmament. And they simply want to get it all off the point on to all this other stuff. I mean, I guess could I say anything about him, as long as I’m standing in Washington, D.C.
____________________
DONAHUE: I should say that the three-the two congressmen who accompanied you to Baghdad, Congressman McDermott were David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. You have the Constitution out, speaking of Robert Byrd. As you know, he’s pulling it out all the time. Tell me how it is germane here, Colonel.
ALLARD: Well, it’s germane because the fact that, for one thing, for 26 years I was privileged to defend that Constitution with my life. But the thing that is interesting in this case is the fact that congressman is also obliged to-and he takes that same oath that a military officer does, in swearing to uphold and protect it. It says very specifically in Section-Article 3, Section 3, that “Treason shall consist of”-and this speaks to your question-”of levying war against the United States or of adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Now, the thing that’s interesting is that “aid and comfort” is very, very much in the eye of the beholder. And I think the interesting issue here-and I want to, you know, speak directly to the point the congressman made, which is the fact that he doesn’t consider that the United States is at war with Iraq. Well, when you’ve got, you know, American fighting men and fighting women in the skies over Iraq getting shot at, they certainly do consider themselves to be at war. And that is neither the time nor the place for someone sworn to uphold and defend this.
DONAHUE: You’re very close to saying “Don’t dissent. Don’t dissent.”
ALLARD: Nope, nope nope! Not the same thing at all.
MCDERMOTT: Yes, it is the same. You’re saying that you have declared war. The Congress declares war. Read the Constitution a little bit more about who declares war. The fact that we have got military over there in an undeclared situation does not mean we’re at war, and this is not treasonous to question the president. The president is simply trying to drive us into war, and he’s doing it by trying to wipe out all dissent. Any time anybody speaks up, they step on him, whether it’s Kennedy, or they step on Daschle or they step on anybody who even asks a question about the president’s proposals.
____________________
DONAHUE: Just briefly, tell me why you went there and what you saw, Congressman. And then we’ll give the colonel a chance here. Why did you go?
MCDERMOTT: Well, a very simple reason. David Bonior and I and Mike are all three veterans of the Vietnam era, and we went over to see what was going on over there and to deliver a message. We delivered it probably 20 times to government officials at every level, from the deputy prime minister through committees of the parliament and the foreign minister, to tell them that we know there has to be inspections. Those of us who don’t want to go to war can’t stop it if they don’t allow unfettered inspections.
Here are some highlights:
REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Is the question whether I should criticize the president, or should I be in enemy territory when I do it? Is that-I’m not quite sure...
DONAHUE: I guess it’s about geography, sir. I’m trying to figure it out myself. I think if you had-I think if you had made this point in Washington, or on the floor, you would not be pilloried as you are today.
MCDERMOTT: I made that point two weeks before. That was old news. I didn’t say anything except to respond to a question over there to an American television station. And the right wing doesn’t want to hear any dissent. That’s what this furor is all about. They don’t want anybody to talk about the fact that the president is confusing the American people about the difference between “regime change,” going to war, and disarmament. And they simply want to get it all off the point on to all this other stuff. I mean, I guess could I say anything about him, as long as I’m standing in Washington, D.C.
____________________
DONAHUE: I should say that the three-the two congressmen who accompanied you to Baghdad, Congressman McDermott were David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. You have the Constitution out, speaking of Robert Byrd. As you know, he’s pulling it out all the time. Tell me how it is germane here, Colonel.
ALLARD: Well, it’s germane because the fact that, for one thing, for 26 years I was privileged to defend that Constitution with my life. But the thing that is interesting in this case is the fact that congressman is also obliged to-and he takes that same oath that a military officer does, in swearing to uphold and protect it. It says very specifically in Section-Article 3, Section 3, that “Treason shall consist of”-and this speaks to your question-”of levying war against the United States or of adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Now, the thing that’s interesting is that “aid and comfort” is very, very much in the eye of the beholder. And I think the interesting issue here-and I want to, you know, speak directly to the point the congressman made, which is the fact that he doesn’t consider that the United States is at war with Iraq. Well, when you’ve got, you know, American fighting men and fighting women in the skies over Iraq getting shot at, they certainly do consider themselves to be at war. And that is neither the time nor the place for someone sworn to uphold and defend this.
DONAHUE: You’re very close to saying “Don’t dissent. Don’t dissent.”
ALLARD: Nope, nope nope! Not the same thing at all.
MCDERMOTT: Yes, it is the same. You’re saying that you have declared war. The Congress declares war. Read the Constitution a little bit more about who declares war. The fact that we have got military over there in an undeclared situation does not mean we’re at war, and this is not treasonous to question the president. The president is simply trying to drive us into war, and he’s doing it by trying to wipe out all dissent. Any time anybody speaks up, they step on him, whether it’s Kennedy, or they step on Daschle or they step on anybody who even asks a question about the president’s proposals.
____________________
DONAHUE: Just briefly, tell me why you went there and what you saw, Congressman. And then we’ll give the colonel a chance here. Why did you go?
MCDERMOTT: Well, a very simple reason. David Bonior and I and Mike are all three veterans of the Vietnam era, and we went over to see what was going on over there and to deliver a message. We delivered it probably 20 times to government officials at every level, from the deputy prime minister through committees of the parliament and the foreign minister, to tell them that we know there has to be inspections. Those of us who don’t want to go to war can’t stop it if they don’t allow unfettered inspections.
Click here for an interesting analysis of the economy and Bush's (lack of an) economic policy. The author suggests this isn't a double dip recession, but instead, has been one, long uninterrupted recession. Hey... like father, like son.
Notinourname.net has information on protests in many major American cities this weekend. Look for me at the Chicago protest at the Tribune Plaza on Sunday at 1 p.m.
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
There's a really good article on Slate.com (believe it or not) about the Red Hot Chili Peppers -- in my mind, one of the most overrated bands in the history of music. The problem? Great musicians, but the LEAD SINGER SUCKS!
Anthony York writes about Al Gore's 3-pronged attack on President (sic) Bush in Salon today (for premium subscribers). Last week, Gore slammed Bush for going after Iraq and ignoring the 9/11 warning signs. This week, it's the economy, stupid.
"Not only did the former vice president fail to offer solutions for the nation's struggling economy, but he also didn't even pick out pieces of the Bush team's economic approach that, in his estimation, were not working. Instead, he simply called on President Bush to gather with his economic team and try to figure out what wasn't working." Wow, what vision!
Gore's idea(s) for fixing the economy? Extending unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs. No other specifics. Yeah, that'll fix it.
Come on, Al -- if you're gonna do it right next time, you've got to swing a lot harder than that.
"Not only did the former vice president fail to offer solutions for the nation's struggling economy, but he also didn't even pick out pieces of the Bush team's economic approach that, in his estimation, were not working. Instead, he simply called on President Bush to gather with his economic team and try to figure out what wasn't working." Wow, what vision!
Gore's idea(s) for fixing the economy? Extending unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs. No other specifics. Yeah, that'll fix it.
Come on, Al -- if you're gonna do it right next time, you've got to swing a lot harder than that.
Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) will be on Donahue tonight to talk about Iraq. All good people on the left should be watching Donahue on a daily basis.
While I think Mediawhoresonline.com is one of the best center-left websites around, today they make one of the most absurd statements they've made in their entire existence. Of course, they make a lot of stupid comments (particularly when they call the current administration (sic) the "Bush/Nader/Cheney regime") but this one just may take the cake.
A reader named "Mike" writes in to explain the disillusionment of many on the left with the Democratic Party. "The plain fact is that the bulk of these Democrats (with very few exceptions), have gone along with these criminals for nearly two years now and look we're it's gotten us. ... Obviously, a government filled with nothing but pig-fucking fascists is not wanted, but the reason Democrats lose so much is that they're afraid to show that there's much difference between themselves and their opponents. The classic case of this were the 2000 debates where Gore kept agreeing with Bush (maybe adding a 'but...' here and there), rather than saying, 'I think you're wrong and here's why.' I've always said if you give people the chance to vote for a Democrat who sounds like a Republican and a Republican, they'll pick the real Repub every time."
To which MWO clumsily responds:
"The truth is, Bush ran 'as a Democrat' in 2000 at least as much as Al Gore ran 'as a Republican.'
I'm not quite sure what they mean by this statement. But the boy Chimp never tried to portray himself as anything but a rabid right-wing Republican. His platform was (is) right-wing, his running mate was (is) right-wing, his advisors were right-wing. Much to my dismay, the same can be said for Al Gore; his platform was too conservative, his running mate was far too conservative and his advisors were too conservative.
MWO then goes on with more of their incoherent babble about Nader (ya' know, "he lost the election for Gore" even though Gore didn't lose the election) and how the Democrats are facing reality and realizing they can't block all of Bush's nominees. And to that, I say, why not? Why roll over and play dead for a man who is illegally occupying the White House and taking this country down a self-righteous path of murder and mayhem? Fight 'em like a muthafucka, that's what I say. Take no prisoners!
Because the Democrats refuse to stand and fight for principle, that is why so many citizens are either voting Green or not voting at all.
A reader named "Mike" writes in to explain the disillusionment of many on the left with the Democratic Party. "The plain fact is that the bulk of these Democrats (with very few exceptions), have gone along with these criminals for nearly two years now and look we're it's gotten us. ... Obviously, a government filled with nothing but pig-fucking fascists is not wanted, but the reason Democrats lose so much is that they're afraid to show that there's much difference between themselves and their opponents. The classic case of this were the 2000 debates where Gore kept agreeing with Bush (maybe adding a 'but...' here and there), rather than saying, 'I think you're wrong and here's why.' I've always said if you give people the chance to vote for a Democrat who sounds like a Republican and a Republican, they'll pick the real Repub every time."
To which MWO clumsily responds:
"The truth is, Bush ran 'as a Democrat' in 2000 at least as much as Al Gore ran 'as a Republican.'
I'm not quite sure what they mean by this statement. But the boy Chimp never tried to portray himself as anything but a rabid right-wing Republican. His platform was (is) right-wing, his running mate was (is) right-wing, his advisors were right-wing. Much to my dismay, the same can be said for Al Gore; his platform was too conservative, his running mate was far too conservative and his advisors were too conservative.
MWO then goes on with more of their incoherent babble about Nader (ya' know, "he lost the election for Gore" even though Gore didn't lose the election) and how the Democrats are facing reality and realizing they can't block all of Bush's nominees. And to that, I say, why not? Why roll over and play dead for a man who is illegally occupying the White House and taking this country down a self-righteous path of murder and mayhem? Fight 'em like a muthafucka, that's what I say. Take no prisoners!
Because the Democrats refuse to stand and fight for principle, that is why so many citizens are either voting Green or not voting at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
